Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: ACLJ Sues Biden Admin Over Employer Mandate on Behalf of Heritage Foundation

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
November 30, 2021 12:00 pm

BREAKING: ACLJ Sues Biden Admin Over Employer Mandate on Behalf of Heritage Foundation

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1076 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


November 30, 2021 12:00 pm

The ACLJ has just filed a lawsuit against President Biden's vaccine mandate on behalf of the Heritage Foundation. The lawsuit was filed directly with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the Biden Administration's COVID vaccine mandate for employers, which has been promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team discuss the ACLJ's newest lawsuit against the Biden Admin. This and more today on Sekulow .

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Breaking news, the American Center for Law Justice has sued the Biden administration over the employer mandate on behalf of the Heritage Foundation. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. As you heard in the open and the Heritage Foundation announced yesterday afternoon, we, the American Center for Law Justice is representing the Heritage Foundation in a lawsuit, a legal challenge against the Biden administration, specifically the Labor Department and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that first said they didn't really have the authority or the means to put in place any kind of mandate for employees. For employers to require vaccines of their employees and to also keep these records and have people watch people who aren't vaccinated take tests and so to basically have these, a whole new burden. And it starts with a company or organization like in Heritage Foundation's situation, it's 100 or more employees.

And it doesn't matter if they're different places, they can all be working remotely, you can have two coming into an office, it would still apply. Now, there's been an injunction against this at the Fifth Circuit. That injunction has been challenged by the Biden administration.

But, Dad, this is a historic moment for the ACLJ to be representing the Heritage Foundation in this challenge against the Biden administration. No, it really is and it's a very narrow and specific challenge and I want to say what we're challenging. We're challenging the constitutionality of the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to actually enforce this mandate. We think that's an encroachment on federalism grounds, it's powers allocated to the states. The states can do these kind of things, but the federal government can't.

OSHA has previously said they can't. They certainly don't have the means to do it, let's be clear about that. I mean, they don't have the financial means and capability to do it, but constitutionally they don't have the authority to do it.

Now, look, I'm coming at this and I want to be clear on this, that we're coming this strictly on the constitutional grounds. I have been vaccinated, I have gotten my booster shots, I encourage people to talk to their doctors and to do that. If their doctor suggests it, which most doctors are, I did it. But, I still don't think the federal government, especially the way it's set up here, has the authority to engage it. So, this is not an attack on the validity of vaccines, which as I said I'm in favor of.

I think it's helped a lot of people and saved a lot, a lot of lives. And it was under the Trump administration that these vaccines were put on fast forward in Operation Warp Speed. But you can't have warp speed on the Constitution. And that's exactly what the Vine administration did here. They knew they didn't have the authority to do this, by the way, they knew that early on.

But, the politics of it made them do it. Now, these cases have all been consolidated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So, what's going to happen is, let me tell you, the ultimate arbiter of this is the Supreme Court. Let me give a caveat, the Supreme Court yesterday rejected a challenge by health care professionals who did not want to take the vaccine. And the Supreme Court rejected their challenge. That was Justice Prior, but so was Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others.

So, these are not easy cases on these individual challenges. But, as it relates to the mandate constitutionally, while I'm in favor of the vaccine and I think it should be available and used by people, it's different when it comes to the federal government mandating something. By the way, state government authority has the authority to do these kind of things. So, I'm going to be clear here, but the federal government coming in does not. Yeah, I mean, part of our, this is the petition for review that we've been filed.

I'm holding it in my hands. You can see it at ACLJ.org. We just posted a new blog up there, too, so you can see the petition's a bit short because this is not the briefing, this is the petition that goes to the court.

Just a part of that, I'll read from it. OSHA's mandate represents a gross abuse of power. It is a far cry from the delicate exercise permitted in very limited situation. The mandate clearly encroaches on the police power of states expressly reserved by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, as my dad was just talking about. You know, there's a difference between public schools or private schools that have a shot list for kids and things like that. Those are done at local, community, and state levels, not federal.

And that is the challenge here. So, again, just to let you know if you're just joining us, the ACLJ representing the Heritage Foundation filing against the Biden administration on their employer vaccine mandate. We have filed a yesterday afternoon in federal court. Information is up at ACLJ.org. Support our work.

Final day of the November matching challenge on this Giving Tuesday. Double the impact of your donation at ACLJ.org. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We have created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, how it's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Sekulow. Share this with your friends and family.

If you're watching the broadcast on one of the social media platforms, Facebook, YouTube, Periscope, Rumble, make sure to share it with your friends and family. This is breaking news. Just yesterday evening, we filed the American Center for Law and Justice. Federal court starts in Washington, D.C.

It will be consolidated to the Sixth Circuit, but you start where the organization is based, so the Heritage Foundation, of course, headquartered in Washington, D.C. And you'll see it's the Heritage Foundation versus an Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, OSHA, the Secretary of Labor, the U.S. Department of Labor. It's something I encourage you at ACLJ.org. Dad, this is actually something, unlike some of the briefs, which can get more and more complicated, this is a pretty good, it's just about four pages that people can check out at ACLJ.org today to read the Federalist arguments that we're putting in place here, that this is not the proper role of the federal government to come in and mandate this. Again, the burdens that apply here, there's issues about keeping medical records, which then implies other federal laws potentially, and watching people get tests in your own office and having to review that and was the test proper.

There's a whole host of problems with this being done. It's why states do these things, localities do these things, not the federal government. This is a straight constitutional issue, and the constitutional issue here is clear, and to be clear, let's talk about what it is. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a set agenda and a set jurisdiction, and what you have happening here is they're going outside of their jurisdiction, and the federal government cannot put in place a procedure or, here, a mandate that does not meet constitutional requirements. Like I said, these are the issues that are reserved for the states, so I think we have to be really clear that what we're talking about is the states being able.

This is the key. The states being able to monitor this on a state-by-state basis, and individuals, of course, make choices, and that's the choices people make. You know what my choice was, but the federal government coming in here constitutionally is not only suspect, we think it's unconstitutional, but it's a very direct challenge. It's nothing against vaccines.

It's nothing against therapeutics. It's a question of federal authority, and to have the Heritage Foundation as your client is an honor for the American Center for Law and Justice. Let me just say, in their history, I don't think they've ever entertained a lawsuit until this one, and we're very appreciative that the Heritage Foundation and their leadership chose us. I got to say, it really is an honor that they picked us to do this. Yes, so you had both their current President until tomorrow, which is a friend of ours, Kay James, and she is departing Heritage, and the new President, Kevin Roberts, who is coming in, who begins tomorrow officially, they issued a joint statement together about the lawsuit and about, again, selecting the American Center for Law and Justice, but also what you pointed out, that Heritage Foundation, maybe they were looking back at their records, I think they filed maybe an amicus brief or two, but they have never been the party in a lawsuit.

They've never been the group being represented in the lawsuit. So this is historic. It's also a historic decision for them as well, but we are certainly honored to be representing one of the foremost, since the 1970s, conservative organizations in the country and very important role they play in Washington, D.C. We worked with them together, we're just down the street, on a lot of policy issues and forms post cases, and our attorneys are very involved together, but this is very unique, so I encourage you to share with your friends and family the broadcast. Check out the blog at ACLJ.org, you can see the petition, and give us a call, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. How important do you believe it is to fight back against this kind of federal mandate, because while this one is supposed to be a six-month mandate, you can see all the talk today, the new variant. If you allow the federal government to have this power, there's kind of no end in sight, and that's one of the issues here, is that they acknowledged that they didn't have the power months ago, and then they got pressure from President Biden to act, even though they acknowledged that they really didn't have the power to act, and then they put this in place, and immediately it was stayed by the courts. They have challenged that stay, so at any time, this is supposed to go into effect January 4th, so right after the new year, they're fighting for it to still go into effect, so I want to make sure folks are clear on that as well. 1-800-684-3110, if you want to talk to us on air, that's 1-800-684-3110. We do want to take your calls. Harry, I think on this issue, very important for people to understand the power grab by the federal government, these moves, even when they say we don't have the power to come back a couple months later and say, what, now we do.

Absolutely, so I think your analysis is correct, and Jay's analysis is correct as well. The mandate exceeds OSHA's statutory authority, and OSHA has already acknowledged that. That, in and of itself, in my view, constitutes a violation of the Constitution. In addition, the OSHA mandate exceeds the federal government's commerce power and encroaches on the state's 10th Amendment police power. I think if you look at the case law, going back to 1905, in a number of cases, the Supreme Court has established firmly that states have a police power, and that police power is protected from encroachment by the federal government by the 10th Amendment. Notwithstanding this precedent, notwithstanding the Constitution, OSHA has issued a mandate pursuant to whom?

President Biden, he lacks the authority to force OSHA to issue an unconstitutional mandate, a mandate that is unconstitutional, in my opinion, on its face. And so I think it's very, very important for our listeners to understand that the ACLJ is acting on behalf of an established organization, the Heritage Foundation, and we are fighting back. We are strongly in favor of individual liberty, the rule of law, and the Constitution, and our active involvement in this particular case establishes that.

Yeah, Neal on YouTuber, praise the Lord for ACLJ, praying for our government leaders that are overstepping their powers. Let me go to Than Bennett in Washington, D.C. Than, this is to, I think it's important for our ACLJ supporters to understand how big of a deal it is to be representing the Heritage Foundation in this matter. We told people that we'd be looking for the right case, the right time, we're going to rush to things, right organization where we fit ideologically, and now people are seeing the fruits of that work today as we talk about it.

But it's a big deal when organizations like ours come together like this. Well, they're a terrific partner to have on any issue, Jordan. Like you said, we've been a partner with them on many different matters, but I think them engaging the lawsuit on partnering with us shows the gravity and the magnitude of this particular mandate, Jordan. I mean, look, I would read to you from incoming President Kevin Roberts.

He just said the Heritage Foundation has not historically filed lawsuits or been party to federal litigation efforts. That we are doing so now should make clear to any observer that we view this mandate as a deadly serious threat to our individual liberty and the values that make America great. And Jordan, I could go a lot of different ways with this. There are a lot of things about this that concern me, but I would really just focus in on answering the question that you asked. If the federal government can do this, Jordan, what are the limits to what they can do?

And are there any limits under the Constitution of the United States? I would suggest that this would deal a very serious blow to that. And look, we've been very clear.

Operation Warp Speed was a tremendous success. It's a wonderful thing, Jordan, that Americans across the country can avail themselves of the option to vaccinate themselves should they choose to do so. But Jordan, that's their choice to do, and it's a matter for states to regulate it. It's not a matter for the federal government to do. And if you can't separate those two arguments and you give the federal government the opportunity to engage in an area where they don't have the authority to do, Jordan, you can't answer the question you posed credibly without saying it does great damage to the limits that the federal government can go. Well, I remember during the Affordable Care Act, they went into court and the individual mandate they argued was really a tax. So they knew that that would not work, so they had to argue that it was a tax even though they told people it wasn't a tax.

The court ultimately accepted that. So the idea of the federal government having this kind of power, again, people, if they look back in history, it's states and localities that have had this kind of power. And that's what the 10th Amendment is broad. It reserves a lot of power to the states.

Look, when your kids go to school, states and counties set requirements, and some of those requirements include vaccination. So it's not a question of can a government do it. It's a question of which government does it. We have federalism in the United States, so the state government has authority that the federal government simply does not have. That's been a question a lot of people are asking on some of the social media platforms. Are we saying that a mandate on any basis is unconstitutional?

And I'm being honest, no. It is on the federal level. It's different when it's state and county. I mean, that's where the police power and health and welfare come in. And, you know, there may be religious exemptions and so forth, but, you know, there are vaccine requirements when your kids go to school. And there's a reason that those are constitutional. So, but that's not the federal government mandating it. And that's what, as Jordan, as you said, the 10th Amendment is so important. And one of the issues we'll get to, too, the penalties here are extreme. So the enforcement, but also the penalties for noncompliance are extreme penalties. We will, again, we're going to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110 so you have questions about the lawsuit, what it would impact. This is really focusing on the employer vaccination mandate by the Biden administration. So it impacts private employers, whether it's the corporate world, the nonprofit world or organizations like Heritage or a company that you might work for. This is whether they have to do it, not if they decide to do it, whether they have to do it because the federal government or face fines.

Be right back. The publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

Share this with your friends and family, folks. Again, a historic announcement today as the ACLJ is representing the Heritage Foundation against the Biden administration. We filed in federal court yesterday evening. That's up at ACLJ.org, too.

You can see it there. We filed in federal court against the Biden administration's employer vaccine mandate on the grounds that this violates the Constitution. It violates the separation of powers, especially when it comes to state power and federal power and the 10th Amendment, which provides broad policing power to the states and your localities. And that this is not the federal government's role. We also talked about what the penalties are here.

It's serious. And if you violate these rules, you're talking at a maximum willful violation. A penalty started at $136,000. Minimum penalties are about $9,700. The legislation sets the max penalty at $13,000 for any single serious violation, so almost $14,000 for a single violation and a further penalty of not more than $13,500 per day for failure to evade the violation.

It's interesting, too. In Build Back Better, the reconciliation bill, this is interesting that it would increase the penalties by 10 times. So willful repeated violations, $1.3 million. Minimum penalty of $97,000 a day. A violation of $136,000 a day.

That's what's in Build Back Better, Than. Yeah, incredibly punitive as it stands under OSHA's statute right now. As you mentioned, $13,000 per violation, a little bit more. $136,000 for a maximum. The Build Back Better Act, Jordan, it's gone through a lot of different machinations. Some of them were 10 times the maximum fine.

The number that we're looking at currently is a maximum fine of $700,000. I mean, Jordan, look, we just have to put this plainly. If OSHA were to, if Build Back Better were to pass and OSHA were to take that maximum fine and they would apply it to companies across America, Jordan, it would crush our economy. I mean, that's what we're talking about here. We've been very plain, very candid with our listeners that the need to address the pandemic is a real one. We have to take a reasoned approach.

Individuals should be looking at all the options available to them, should be availing themselves of the best choices for them. But Jordan, the answer is not crippling the American economy. That would actually make this dramatically worse. And if you're talking about $700,000 fines for a violation of this, that would just be absolutely devastating. You know, I think, Dan, let's go ahead.

Yeah, I was going to tell you, I want to just follow up on something that Dan just said because it's absolutely so true. These penalties they put in place are draconian. I mean, you know, there's a legitimate constitutional issue here. I think everybody that was being honest would say there's a legitimate constitutional issue here. And then to have the government enforcing a provision that they themselves have said is not enforceable and then attaching to it $700,000 fines, which would cripple every business. Look, private employers could decide to do what they want to do, too. You understand that. I hope people understand what we're talking about. This is the government.

A private employer could say, like a hospital, if you're going to work here, you're going to be vaccinated. I mean, they have the authority to say that, and people are going to post, oh, I don't like that Jay said that. But I'm going to tell you what the law is, not like maybe how you'd like it to be. That's what the law is. And this law does not rest with constitutional authority. That's what we're talking about here.

Yes. And so we're talking about specifically the Biden administration, federal government's attempt to, which by the way, I mean, even running this, that to me that it's so ripe for abuse because of the penalties are so high, even before, let's say, Bill Beck better doesn't get through. It's still really high penalties. I mean, we're talking $14,000 per incident, and then it could be $14,000 a day.

So that's the initial, that could add up very quickly for a business that has 100 employees or an organization with 100 employees or more. So the idea here is that, again, before you even get to the bigger fines of the Bill Beck better, is, though, that this is ultimately, this is about saying this is not the role of the federal government. They know it's not the role OSHA asserted a couple of months ago. They didn't have this authority. Then they came back because they had pressure from the President to put this in place.

Well, that's exactly what it was. I mean, they knew they didn't have the constitutional authority to do this. So then you ask yourself, so why did they do it?

Well, they did it because they thought that the political pressure was just too great. Now, there's another issue here, and that is, as we've said, the Commerce Clause, the separation of federalism that requires deference to state governments and matters of public health and safety. There are, when something would reach the federal level, the magnitude of what it has to be is a whole different situation. As I said, I'm pro-vaccine, and I'm not a doctor.

I don't give medical advice, but I've been vaccinated and boosted, and everybody makes their own choice. But there are consequences with those choices, as unfortunately I've seen in my own family, and those can be devastating. But again, it's not a question of whether the science is this or that. It's a question of whether the federal government has the authority to do this. And the federal government doesn't.

And the state government's situation would be a completely different case. You're not seeing that because, you know, states are getting to pretty high compliance. I mean, the numbers are actually impressive on the percentage of people getting vaccinated and, or other therapeutics that are now coming out. They're talking about a pill that may be available soon.

So I'm glad these, look, for those people that are saying this is all conspiracy, I want to remind conservatives that this warp speed, which resulted in these three vaccines, was under Donald Trump, who took the vaccine and has advocated for it. So I don't want you to think that this is some kind of, you know, conspiracy thing. We're talking about a constitutional challenge that we think is significant. But I don't want that to be confused with people's health and welfare. That's a different story. I want to be clear on that. I know people are going to object and they're already posting things on, you know, in comments, but we're going to be very clear always at the ACLJ what our position is.

Yeah. And I mean, the Heritage Foundation also has encouraged employees to, as you said, they're not doctors, to seriously consider. That's the language they use to get vaccinated. They were appreciative of President Trump. They were one of the groups that were trying to cut through the media, which tried to forget that it was, and they were mocking President Trump, remember, and the Trump administration for saying we could get this done within a year and get this into people's arms. And Operation Warp Speed. And Heritage Foundation actually was out, take on the lead on that, tried to remind people why we got to the point we got to with the vaccine.

It's because the media tried to and the left tried to forget because they looked pretty ridiculous and foolish because they were all mocking and say there's no way this could ever happen. But I do want to take your phone calls as well. I know it's been a lot to take in, a lot to talk about.

1-800-684-3110. But Harry, I think that big picture here is that if this is, you know, this six month mandate was allowed, then the federal government's in this whole new world of mandating things. Absolutely.

And mandating continuously. And I think the vaccine mandate issued by OSHA is designed to do one thing really only, and that is to cover up for President Biden's failures. Remember, candidate Biden suggested that any President who presided over the number of COVID deaths that President Trump presided over does not deserve to be President.

We now have more deaths under President Biden suggesting that President Biden does not deserve to be President. And so the imposition of these penalties is really designed, I think, to cover up for the Biden administration's failures and it seeks ultimately to enslave corporations in doing the government's work. You know, and this is, again, folks, I want to remind you, tomorrow at the Supreme Court we'll have live analysis of the Dobbs case, the first major challenge to Roe vs. Wade. What I'm holding in my hand right now, three briefs filed by the ACLJ.

Representing the Heritage Foundations we announced against the Biden administration's employer mandate. We're also three briefs filed in the Dobbs case. If you want to support our work, the Matching Challenge November, you've got it on this Giving Tuesday. Double the impact your donation to ACLJ.org.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about freedom.

We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

Let me reset for you. If you're just joining us and you missed some of the first half hour or caught it kind of midway through, the ACLJ, we're honored to announce we are representing the Heritage Foundation in federal court. It's been filed. I'm holding my hands right now.

I've got lots of briefing around the studio today. It's been filed in federal court last yesterday evening after we were on the air. And it's historic for the Heritage Foundation. They've never filed as a party. They filed an amicus brief before, but they've never been represented in a legal challenge like this. This is how important they believe it is to be involved in this issue as an organization. And they chose, which we're honored, the American Center for Law and Justice in their first ever legal challenge to represent them. And so the ACLJ representative, so you can see on our website at ACLJ.org, you can read the petition that's been filed.

You can also find it on Heritage. We're going to try to have their new President begins tomorrow. Kevin Roberts and then Kay James, who is stepping down as President, a good friend of ours too. They issued a joint release to make sure the timing worked on this as an organization, both working together to do this. At the same time, dad's announcing that and I think Kevin will be joining us on the broadcast later this week to talk about it.

So it's a great partnership. We've done a lot of work with Heritage over the decades in Washington, D.C. A lot of policy events they use our attorneys and experts and vice versa. But we've also got a major case tomorrow, so it's holding the Heritage petition, a major case tomorrow at the U.S. Supreme Court, the biggest since probably Planned Parenthood versus Casey, which is the Dobbs case out of Mississippi. Yeah, because this is the constitutionality of Roe versus Wade and you've got a majority conservative Supreme Court that thinks, we hope, that they think that this issue of abortion needs to rightfully be returned to the states. As I've said, the overturning of Roe versus Wade does not, and I want to be clear on this, does not end abortion.

What it does, it returns this to the states. That's a big deal. That is a huge deal. And we think that's constitutionally correct. As you said, we've got multiple of our organizations have filed briefs under the Supreme Court rules here. So I will tell you that my view is that we have an opportunity here. If there was ever an opportunity, Jordan, for Roe versus Wade to be overturned, this is probably it. And the court's going to have to decide whether they're going to stick with what they call stare decisis, which is, you know, you have a long-standing precedent, we're just going to stick with it, or they're going to do what they did in cases where the Supreme Court has got it wrong and turn this around.

And I'm optimistic that they'll turn it around. But we'll get a good sense of this during the oral argument tomorrow. Yeah, I mean, now that those are being broadcast, the audio is being broadcast live, and again, they don't necessarily stay within the same bounds of time that used to, so it can go longer, but we'll be live with you tomorrow in the air. But, Dad, I think it's important, you know, just to kind of underscore for people. The reason why we can file the three briefs there, announce the heritage representation, represent the governor of South Dakota and the state of South Dakota, and an action involving a pro-life pregnancy, counseling and informed consent, all the different work that you see, and there's a lot more at ACLJ.org, there's our offices overseas, is because of people's support. That's exactly right, and you're going to hear from, you heard from Mike Pompeo, our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs yesterday, you're going to hear from Rick Grenell, the former Director of National Intelligence and Ambassador to Germany, who is our Senior Advisor on International Policies and National Security, and all this happens, including those briefs you talked about and these cases we've done because of the support of our members. So I want to say thank you on behalf of all of us, the people you see every day on this broadcast, but the hundreds of people you don't see that are working around the globe on these projects, so I want to encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org here on the last day of our matching challenge for this month. That's at ACLJ.org, you can double the impact of your donation, and that goes to all of this work, and it's why we've been able to expand the work we're able to do here in the United States and also around the world. So go to ACLJ.org, I encourage you, and I know it's Giving Tuesday, so a lot of people use this as an opportunity to give to organizations and that they support the work that we do. I encourage you to utilize it because you can double the impact of your donation. We've got a group of donors who will match the donation that comes through until midnight tonight. And there's also the concert tonight as well from the Jay Sekulow Band, so I want to encourage people to check that out. Is that 8 p.m. Eastern Time?

I think it's 8 p.m. Eastern Time, but I'll confirm it when we get back with Rick Rinnell. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Rick Grenell, our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security, is joining us now. We're going to shift topics just for a moment to get into some international issues that are also in the news and also very important for all of us as Americans. It involves China's weapons program, specifically what even the New York Times calls a nuclear arms race.

Think about that. And Rick, it says that the U.S. wants to talk. I found this interesting when you brought it to our attention to discuss today, and I was looking at it further with our team this morning, is that we don't really have, unlike with Russia and some of the things that came out of the Cold War, we don't have really like a direct line of communication with China when it comes to nuclear weapons? Look, the reason we're talking about this is because there's an assessment, a report that the Biden administration is doing about what capabilities the Chinese have when it comes to nuclear weapons and what our response would be. This is a report that is required by law for every administration to do. And so in some ways, this is one of those exercises that we just have to go through to assess.

It's a good idea. But what's troubling is the Free Beacon has been reporting on the fact that the Biden administration has asked two experts on limiting our nuclear weapons from the Carnegie Institute to submit a report to the Biden administration on options that the Biden administration can use going forward when it comes to nuclear weapons. Now, these two individuals that have been asked to do this report have a long history of trying to get the United States to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons. And that's a problem.

That's a real concern. You know, the Joe Biden of today is not the Joe Biden of 15 years ago or even five years ago. The progressives have taken over this administration. And now what we see is China rising to the occasion of a weak Joe Biden.

You know, it's also interesting. I saw that the comparison was that we have kind of a history in dealing with the Russians. And so when we have to deal with nuclear issues directly, if we were trying to get a handle on the Chinese situation or try to work together on agreements and treaties, that that would be something very new, unlike what's been this kind of historic back and forth between between Russia and the United States. So, Rick, I mean, this doesn't seem to be the administration that's going to really be the one that kicks that into gear, though.

Right. I think what you're what you're getting at is correct in that our relationship with Russia is long on disarmament and limitations on what we can do, certainly on testing nuclear weapons. We have agreements with the Russians that go back decades. We don't have that same luxury with the Chinese. And basically the Chinese right now are rushing to build up their nuclear portfolio. It is troubling when you look at the Biden administration's history with China. They have always underestimated China. They sat in Alaska just recently and were lectured by the Chinese on our the United States human rights record. And now we know about the Hunter Biden laptop, which shows a whole bunch of information about the Biden and Biden family's ties to Chinese government and Chinese businesses. And so I think China right now is emboldened. They feel like they can push forward on the nuclear front, push forward on lecturing the United States, and that the Biden team is just too weak to respond. And I think that they right now that calculation is true.

You know, Wes had a question for you, Rick. Yeah. You know, I think anytime, Rick, that U.S. leadership is perceived as vacillating or weak, our adversaries, they will take advantage of that. What I find alarming, I guess is the word, is the administration has a certain amount of naivete about this. You're talking about the difference between our longstanding relationship with Russia versus China. You know, Jake Sullivan recently said that we did not want to contain China.

We wanted a peaceful coexistence. What's your thought about that? I'm so glad that you pointed that out, because I think Jake has a long history. The National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, has a long history of looking at China as an academic exercise and limiting his thought about China to what's on paper. And certainly that's problematic because in the real world, China doesn't tell the truth.

They don't have a free media. I mean, look no further than we allowed China to be a member of the World Trade Organization when Bill Clinton was leaving office because we thought if we engaged with China at the WTO, that somehow they would move closer towards the rule of law, democracy, capitalism. And what we found over the last 20 years is that's not true. China has gotten worse while we engage with them. And so we need an administration that stands up to China, that simply says you can't just start going towards nuclear weapons without a reaction from the United States. And the recent phone call between Xi and Biden didn't get a big reaction or a tough reaction from the Biden team, quite the opposite. The Biden team was spinning that the call went well and they talked about a variety of subjects, but then news came out later that they actually never said the word nuclear weapons.

They never discussed it. And I can tell you from my eight years at the UN, unless you confront these issues directly with the Chinese, beating around the bush does not work. Rick, I wanted to ask you this because when you look at China and you look at Russia and you look at Iran and you look at what was going on in Syria, it's an axis. And the concern that I think we have is we have an administration, at least in their foreign policy concept, that deals with this as if it's in a parallel universe, not the reality of what these governments are up to. It's Jay, you hit it on the head because what it is, is the expectations of how the Chinese have played over the last 30 years. Remember, Joe Biden has been around for so long that he's trapped about what China used to be. And he has a hard time believing the reality of what China is doing right now, which is why when they came to Alaska, they were able to lecture us and our secretary of state sat there and got a lecture on human rights from the Chinese.

Think about that. The hypersonic way, we had our military speak out, the chairman of the joint chief of staff said it was like a sputnik moment because of the hypersonic test. I mean, this orbits the earth, then gets launched into a vehicle. I mean, even the US reports were saying they're not sure how this is being done. I mean, that's how, as you were talking about, Rick, this is a different country than it was under Mao.

This is a different country than it has been in the last 30 years. They are now actively making the place to become the world's number one power. And what you just pointed to was the test that the Chinese just did, going around the world and maneuvering their rocket.

And, you know, it's four times the speed of sound. And it's very concerning to the United States that all of a sudden the Chinese seem to be pushing towards breakout. They're trying to get to the point where they can compete with us with nuclear weapons.

They're testing, they're going underground. They are busy trying to catch up to the United States while at the same time the US is really just, you know, ignoring and trying to contain and realizing that we're going to have to compete with China. I mean, we could talk about this all day, the implications for ignoring China and having a rise in China so fast. As I've always said, Russia is a problem, but China is a crisis. Yeah, just really quickly, and then following up on this China situation. So, Rick, I mean, we're talking about what the problem is.

What's the solution? Well, look, the solution is certainly not beating around the bush, but directly going to the Chinese and having some of these discussions while at the same time realizing the threat that's underway and breaking towards the future where the United States is clearly in the front. Now, remember that Donald Trump did this. He saw what was happening in space.

He saw that we needed to make a big move in space to protect our satellites, and he created the Space Force. That was largely because of what we were reading that the Chinese were doing. Remember, the United States is still dominant in the water and underwater, but the Chinese are really making a play for land-based and air. And so we've got to be able to stay ahead, which means the good old Ronald Reagan warning of peace through strength means having a Pentagon that is at the forefront of technology, utilizing technology, and then being able to not use it because you have the best. You know, we know as a country that if we want to do it and we want to compete and we want to excel and we want to be the leader, we can, but we have to have the will. We have to have the right leaders in place. And as Rick said, I mean, it's there to do.

Rick, appreciate you being on with us today. It's there, but you've got to have the will to do it. You've got to make the investments. You've got to encourage the military instead of discourage the military and rethink some of the strategies that this is not 1980.

This is, again, you know, we're in the 2020s, and the world of space is very real, and these advanced weapons are very real. While we come back, we'll continue to talk, get you back up to speed on the cases as well, a little bit more on the Dobbs case as well. Go to ACLJ.org. You can find out about all the information there. That's ACLJ.org. Support our work. Double the impact your donation.

The final day of the November matching challenge is today. Donate today at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sec Hill.

We are taking your phone calls too if you want to get them in now, 1-800-68-431. There's been a lot of information today shared on the broadcast. Let me remind you, if you're just joining us, I'd add a big announcement today because it occurred yesterday at our filing last night, but the ACLJ is representing the Heritage Foundation against the Biden Administration's employer mandate. It's historic for the Heritage Foundation because they have never filed a lawsuit directly as a party. They think an amicus brief before and that's how serious they're taking this overreach by the federal government. Again, they chose and so we're honored for their first time to engage this way, the American Center for Law and Justice and our legal team to represent them.

It is historic that the heritage even engaged it. They engaged it from a policy issue and they encouraged their employees to get vaccines. They just didn't like the mandate. I think this is where you have to separate the policy issue from what each employer does.

That's different. From a policy standpoint here, this is not a difficult call because the federal government, OSHA said this, they don't have the authority to do this. OSHA doesn't have the authority to do it, which is the federal agency that's been chosen to put this out. They don't have the authority to do it.

The answer is the federal government can't do it. It's all consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. All of these cases, I think there's 30 or 40 but over 100 plaintiffs, are consolidated now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

What will happen is you will see, and I think this is likely, you will see a pretty fast-moving issue and ultimately we know that in all probability it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Yeah, and so this information is up at ACLJ.org and this is, to me, Harry, it's a serious case and there's been a lot of different groups have filed but it's a serious case because the federal government is always trying to grab more power. They're always trying to say, you know, to take power but even when the last time around they tried to do a mandate, they ended up at the Supreme Court arguing it wasn't actually a mandate, it was a tax.

It's not really, it's not their role. States have these roles and states will make their own exceptions for the rules. States do this all the time.

If your kids go to school, the state requires that they get this shot to go to this grade, this to the next grade. But the federal government does not do that. And the federal government doesn't do that because of the 10th Amendment or the Constitution, Harry.

I think that's precisely correct but it's also important to keep in mind that progressives seek relentlessly to do one thing and one thing only to grab power even if that attempt to grab power is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. So I think a first year law student who read the Obamacare case would understand that individual mandates violate the Commerce Clause. Individual mandates with respect to the vaccine also violate the police power of states. Nonetheless, the Biden administration has essentially said full speed ahead. We are going to introduce this in part because the Biden strategy of basically corralling COVID has not worked as effectively as they thought it might. And so now the Biden administration seeks to blame individuals who refuse to take the vaccine or who have questions about it or who have talked to their physician and their physician recommends against it. So I think it's important to keep in mind the federal government only has a limited role within this particular arena, within this particular space.

But nonetheless, the Biden administration seeks to absorb all of the oxygen in the room concerning the vaccine. And I think they will find that their attempt violates the Constitution, both the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. It's actually one, I encourage people, the blog is up at ACLJ.org, but in the blog is the link to our petition. Again, it's just a few pages, so it's one that everyone who's listening right now or watching can digest very quickly and see the legal argument making obviously will be extended out in briefing, but it's unique in that sense that you can see kind of in a very simple way the arguments that we're making.

I think they're very straightforward. Our listeners, I would think, would be able to pick that up and read right through it and understand the argument we're making. And this started right, you know, you start these cases in the Court of Appeals, which is very unique.

It's not the only time this has happened. There are other provisions where you go to the Court of Appeals. It's a petition for review.

I think it's four pages, like you said. The court limited the size, and the briefing will be more extensive, obviously. And the cases, but like I said, all the cases are consolidated.

So the question here is very simple. Does the federal government have the authority or not? Now, OSHA said they didn't.

Now they said they do. So all of that becomes very relevant in this litigation, too, as you can imagine. But at the end of the day, the question is going to be constitutionally a power reserve to the states, or does the federal government have the ability to come in here and mandate?

And we think at the end of the day it should be the federal government does not have that authority, and that it's an authority that vests with the states, and that's how it should be handled. Folks, I just encourage you. This is, again, an ACLJ. This is the work that we are doing, whether it's a case like today announcing the representation of the Heritage Foundation against the Biden administration's employer vaccination mandate. Again, the important case tomorrow. I want to spend time on this one, and I think this was, Wes, for people of faith who have been leading the charge of the life movement. But also, now that science and technology have caught up, the first major challenge the Supreme Court has agreed to hear to Roe v. Wade since the early 90s. Yeah, decades, decades in the struggle and the making of what's coming up tomorrow. And in reality, I think what they're asking, even though it's been billed as overturning Roe v. Wade, I think they're asking for it to do what the Constitution provides and let the individual states, let the individual states set up the laws and the principles concerning pro-life versus pro-choice, and Mississippi is trying to do that.

This is the most important case since Roe v. Wade, and we'll be praying and watching as this goes forward. You know, Dad, this is, again, it's the final day of our November match. I know your band tonight has put together a performance for people with some new music in it as well. That's at 8 p.m. Eastern time on your Facebook page, so people can check that out. I'll host again, again, I'll do it as quickly as possible in the breaks, but it's a thank you to our supporters and a reminder that they've got until midnight tonight to be part of that November match.

But it really is a thank you to the people who have already donated. Yeah, we've got a bunch of new songs that we've added to it. We've got the whole team is there. This is a big traveling month for a lot of our guys, but you're going to see the whole band tonight. And we're excited about it, and it is our thank you. And a reminder at the end of the last hours of this match that you can still participate if you haven't already, but it is a thank you, and we always enjoy doing this during our matching challenge. We do it, you know, four, six times a year.

And like I said, some new songs, some new tunes, and I think you're going to really enjoy it. All right, folks, let me encourage you. Go to ACLJ.org. If you want to learn about our representation of the Heritage Foundation, you can go right there. It's up at the homepage. You can actually see I'm holding the petition for review. It's stamped. It's been filed.

It was filed yesterday afternoon. So you can read it and see it. It's four pages plus the signatures. So it's about five pages, technically, and also our briefing on Dobbs. Tomorrow we're going to be focused in on that.

This is going to be a great resource for you. Make sure you go, if you listen to our broadcast through radio, through Sirius XM, or watch our broadcast online, let me encourage you tomorrow. You don't want to miss. We'll be doing live analysis of the first major challenge to Roe vs. Wade since 1992, I believe. So this is, again, very important for all of our listeners. So you definitely want to be tuned in tomorrow as we analyze the oral argument. It will be broadcast live. At least you'll be able to hear, not see, but hear the arguments.

We'll be able to break it down for you live on the air. Support our work at ACLJ.org. Double the impact of your donation and check out the concert tonight at 8 p.m. on the Jay Sekulow Facebook page.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-07-16 01:09:51 / 2023-07-16 01:33:45 / 24

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime